Can You Really Separate Artists/Author/Musicians/Actors From Their Works?

[LilyLark 10,095]

43 minutes ago, Mr Mendes said:

For me, it's dependent upon the situation. Some artists I can't, some I can. 

This. It depends on the situation, and it also depends on if their personal views heavily impact their art.

There's also a massive difference between consuming the art of a problematic artist who has passed—James Brown, David Bowie—and one who is still alive (Roman Polanski, Woody Allen).

[Meta Mart 352]

Is no distinction. The art is the artist. If you find difficulty separating a conceptual framework or understanding from an artist, you shouldn't, universalist structures aren't especially meaningful in a prejudiced sense of identity. 

But art is very personal. If you like someones good stuff or their take on bad commentary or whatever, and you disagree with some failing of that persons that you take umbrage with, the art is representative of them, and you can't seperate that from them. You can just choose to either engage with it or not, but thinking to seperate the artist is a dumb thinking fallacy delusion.

The whole idea of accountability is that people are attached to their works. Part of it too, is that you can't judge someone's whole life by differently related parts. You are accountable because we attach the art to you, it being yours, and that makes you responsible for it. Just as an audience member you are accountable by the things you choose to engage with as audience, if that matters. 

It goes miles to consider that sincerity is not about judging someone's work to dismiss them, as an accountability. Rather dismiss them and their work. But in truth, partly what entails getting along in this crazy world is us having a sense of humour for people's good and bad sides and times and changes and evolutions. And not to hold other's hostage, not even to works of theirs, being theirs, as if they must be discriminatorily appointed to them. When someone makes art, they are accountable to it, but in the long run, everything changes, even the scope of the art for the times, even by it's sense of relevance to the age which is transient. Essentially as we would associate an artist with their work fundamentally, we must also associate that as they would change their relationship with it, in whatever manner, that is a part of how they create their context for that artwork and themselves being the artist of it that is representative.

[Pennywise 36,079]

No 

[A Fried Egg 8,758]

If Hitler painted the Sistine chapel, I wouldn’t burn it down. I’d burn Hitler at the stake and keep the art for newer generations to study painting techniques. Use it for themselves or reinvent etc. 

[TheSine 6,179]

20 hours ago, Charmz said:

Yes. I tend to separate the art and the artist. 

Me enjoying a book (in my case, Harry Potter and Mists of Avalon come to mind) has no bearing on holding the artist accountable for whatever wrong they’re responsible for. I still condone their horrible behavior, but can still enjoy a Harry Potter movie or book now and then.

Big picture for me is - life is short, and interesting - art can help you cope, escape, imagine, motivate, anger, feel. 

There are so many everyday products/brands that we consume and support that we have NO clue what type of people work for them, yet we still buy it. 

I’m self aware in that I know I’m a person of little influence in society, and that me enjoying a book written when I was a child won’t change much in the grand scheme of life.

That being said, I’d be open to hear viewpoints of fans of artists like R. Kelley (I wasn’t a fan even before all the horrible stuff came out, so he doesn’t get my money either way) - do they still stream his music? If you do, enjoy. You listening to a song you enjoy won’t change his horrible actions. Whether or not you feel empathetically connected to his actions through the art itself is completely up to the consumer of the art.

 

 

 

I agree with this. You took the words right out of my mouth. Whether it be artwork, music, fashion as long as someone doesn't fully support and excuse their actions it's fine for me. It really depends on what the crime was.

[Taylucifer 5,139]

If they are dead, mostly yeah, if they are alive, mostly no but depends 

[misham0nster 130]

21 hours ago, Helxig said:

Yes but no. Sometimes but not always. It's complicated

Honestly...yeah, it's not black and white. So true there's no ethical consumption. Like, painfully true. And it's a tricky line to draw. Sure, some people are egregiously and clearly terrible, but we all do things we wish we hadn't and we don't always know the entirety of the stories. It's unreasonable to expect yourself to be a perfect arbiter of this kind of thing.

You can't stop yourself from enjoying or relating to a piece of art that resonates for you. But you can understand that situations are complicated and that even if you like a piece of work, that doesn't mean that you agree with the actions of the artist.

Imo the best thing we can do about these situations is to start where we are. Have hard discussions with your loved ones. Encourage your friends to build community and truly support each other. Practice generosity, kindness, active listening, and restorative justice. You can't stop terrible people from making money. But you can make a better world for the people you love and nurture that community.

[ChicaSkas 22,965]

I sure hope so because I still blast Cary Nokey and I still blast Do What U Want.... (which makes me the lowest of the low gaga fan)

 

[Ronk 14,762]

No.  I follow artists I believe are nice people, who don't drag other artists and who let their work speak for itself.  I would never support a mean artist.  It's not always easy to tell if an artist is a nice person because stans of other artists post hate and negative things about an artist even if their claims are false.

[Alfonso 1,547]

2 hours ago, ChicaSkas said:

I sure hope so because I still blast Cary Nokey and I still blast Do What U Want.... (which makes me the lowest of the low gaga fan)

 

No Chicaaaaa, how is blasting Do What You Want considered low? I think the topic is complicated, in the sense that everyone has it's way of separating it, and it's ok. I would use that song as the perfect example since I think it's a bop and love to blast to it like you do. 

I feel like it's not fair to just erase its existence because of what happened, like why should the art suffer the consequences? Yes, someone like The Weeknd or anyone else could've been the original feat or done a remix and maybe it would've worked, but sadly that's not the case as they didn't even try to save it. 

And I'm not a fan of R. Kelly and obviously I'm in no way defending him, but let's pretend for a moment I was fan of his music and grew up with it; I don't think I would be able to give up on the songs that I have loved for so many years, right? Imagine if it was gaga or anyone else you truly loved, would you stop listening to her music? The same could be said with any other artists material, like in music you could think about any one hit wonder, who we don't even know or follow, because we were not there (if it's an old one) or because we didn't even want to.. we just liked the music.

Perhaps it's more about stopping the praise of the artist and focusing more on his work? Not giving him a platform or a place where he's able to keep doing what he wants to do I guess?

But yeah, I still think it's hard and complicated, so who knows

[ChicaSkas 22,965]

8 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

No Chicaaaaa, how is blasting Do What You Want considered low? I think the topic is complicated, in the sense that everyone has it's way of separating it, and it's ok. I would use that song as the perfect example since I think it's a bop and love to blast to it like you do. 

I feel like it's not fair to just erase its existence because of what happened, like why should the art suffer the consequences? Yes, someone like The Weeknd or anyone else could've been the original feat or done a remix and maybe it would've worked, but sadly that's not the case as they didn't even try to save it. 

And I'm not a fan of R. Kelly and obviously I'm in no way defending him, but let's pretend for a moment I was fan of his music and grew up with it; I don't think I would be able to give up on the songs that I have loved for so many years, right? Imagine if it was gaga or anyone else you truly loved, would you stop listening to her music? The same could be said with any other artists material, like in music you could think about any one hit wonder, who we don't even know or follow, because we were not there (if it's an old one) or because we didn't even want to.. we just liked the music.

Perhaps it's more about stopping the praise of the artist and focusing more on his work? Not giving him a platform or a place where he's able to keep doing what he wants to do I guess?

But yeah, I still think it's hard and complicated, so who knows

I meant the Cary Nokey part also.... and I loved the R Kelly catalog as a teen growing up, had no idea he was abusing women...

I have always loved Fusari's music... even though there's probably like a 5% chance at this point in time that he wasnt the one who hurt her. 

[Guest]

i don't wanna give money to a rapist and I hate hypocrites who pretend to save the wurld but they make money. 

 

[Guillaume Hamon 6,475]

If I stop watching Polanski movies I only stop myself from getting a masterclass in cinema from one of the greatest since it changes nothing in this monster life...

He's still super old and forever escaping US justice peacefully in his Switzerland mansion where he's probably about to die. Me hating it will change nothing to that...

Now I didn't go to theater to see his last one cause I don't want to give him a penny, that's actually my only way to affect this dude's life a tiny bit and I gladly take it. 

[Moose 976]

I find it harder to separate when the artist is front stage, compared to someone working behind-the-scenes. So I avoid any content from, say, Michael Jackson / Mel Gibson / Armie Hammer, but I might watch a film from a problematic director and listen to music from a problematic producer.

[River 116,228]

It depends on the action.

I can deal with opinions, i can't change the artist opinions by not buying their art, I can try to change them by fighting back with my opinions.

But if the artist killed, stole, sexually assaulted or supported it in a way, then I'm not going to buy their new and old art.